Advaita Tradition

Historical Background and Sources

The Advaita tradition is a major current of Vedānta, itself a school of classical Indian philosophy grounded in the Upaniṣads, Bhagavad Gītā, and Brahma Sūtras. The Sanskrit term advaita literally means “not-two,” signifying a non-dual understanding of reality.

Pre-Advaitic non-dual ideas appear in early Upaniṣads (such as the Chāndogya and Bṛhadāraṇyaka), which proclaim the identity of ātman (the inner self) and Brahman (ultimate reality). These texts provided the conceptual basis for later systematic Advaita.

The tradition’s classical form is associated with Ādi Śaṅkara (often dated to the 8th century CE), whose commentaries (bhāṣyas) on the Upaniṣads, Bhagavad Gītā, and Brahma Sūtras became canonical for Advaita. Śaṅkara also founded monastic centers (maṭhas) that institutionalized Advaita as a monastic and scholastic lineage.

After Śaṅkara, sub‑schools developed, notably the Bhāmatī school (associated with Vācaspati Miśra) and the Vivarana school (linked to Prakāśātman and others). These commentators refined debates on topics such as the nature of ignorance (avidyā), the status of the world, and the mechanism by which non-dual knowledge arises.

Advaita interacted closely with other Indian traditions. It argued against Buddhist schools (especially Yogācāra and Madhyamaka), engaged rival Vedānta systems such as Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvaita, and responded to Nyāya and Mīmāṃsā critiques of its epistemology and metaphysics.

Core Doctrines of Non-Duality

At the heart of Advaita is the claim that only Brahman is ultimately real, and that the individual self is identical with Brahman. Several key concepts structure this claim:

• Brahman: The unconditioned, infinite, non-dual reality, characterized in the Upaniṣads as sat–cit–ānanda (being–consciousness–bliss). Brahman is said to be nirguṇa (without attributes) at the highest level of truth, though saguṇa Brahman (with qualities) is accepted as a pragmatic, devotional conception.

• Ātman: The innermost self, pure consciousness, distinct from body, mind, and personality. Advaita maintains that ātman = Brahman, expressed in the mahāvākyas (“great sentences”) such as “tat tvam asi” (“you are that”) and “ahaṃ brahmāsmi” (“I am Brahman”).

• Māyā and avidyā: The apparent world of plurality and change is explained through māyā (often translated as illusion, power of projection, or cosmic ignorance) and avidyā (ignorance). According to Advaita, Brahman alone is paramārthika (ultimately real); the world is vyāvahārika (empirically real) but not ultimately so. Some texts also speak of prātibhāsika (merely illusory, like a dream).

• Levels of reality: To preserve both non-duality and the undeniable experience of plurality, Advaita distinguishes levels of truth. From the highest standpoint, only non-dual Brahman is real; from the empirical standpoint, the world, moral law, and individual selves function and must be taken seriously.

• Adhyāsa (superimposition): A central epistemic mechanism is adhyāsa, the mistaken superimposition of attributes belonging to one thing onto another—such as superimposing a snake onto a rope in dim light. Advaita analogously claims that the body–mind complex is superimposed on pure consciousness, giving rise to the sense of being a limited individual.

Metaphysically, Advaita is often described as a form of absolute non-dualism or monistic idealism, though traditional exponents sometimes resist these specific labels. They emphasize that Brahman is not simply a mental construct but the very ground of the possibility of any experience, mental or physical.

Practice, Liberation, and Critiques

Advaita is not only a metaphysical doctrine but a soteriological path oriented toward mokṣa (liberation). Liberation is defined as the direct realization of one’s identity with Brahman, resulting in freedom from saṃsāra (cycle of birth and death) and the cessation of fundamental suffering.

Standard Advaita pedagogy outlines a graded path:

• Preparatory disciplines (sādhana-catuṣṭaya): Including ethical conduct, mental tranquility, dispassion, and a strong desire for liberation.

• Hearing, reflection, and contemplation: Śravaṇa (systematic listening to the teachings), manana (rational reflection and resolution of doubts), and nididhyāsana (deep contemplative assimilation) culminate in non-dual insight.

Advaita incorporates devotional (bhakti) practices, ritual, and meditation as auxiliary means to purify the mind, even though knowledge (jñāna) is regarded as the immediate cause of liberation.

Other traditions have raised sustained critiques:

• Theistic Vedānta (e.g., Rāmānuja’s Viśiṣṭādvaita, Madhva’s Dvaita) argue that Advaita undermines the reality of a personal God and the world, and confuses the relation between finite selves and the divine. They maintain various forms of qualified or strict dualism.

• Buddhist philosophers have questioned Advaita’s notion of a permanent self and challenged its appeal to an ineffable, unchanging Brahman, contrasting it with emptiness (śūnyatā) and momentariness.

• Nyāya realists fault Advaita’s doctrine of māyā as incoherent, arguing that it fails to explain how pervasive error is possible without conceding some reality to plurality.

Advaita responses typically stress the two levels of reality, insisting that empirical life, ethics, and devotion retain full practical validity at the vyāvahārika level, while non-duality pertains to paramārthika truth.

Modern Developments and Global Reception

From the 19th century onward, the Advaita tradition has been reinterpreted in the context of colonialism, modern science, and global exchange. Figures such as Swami Vivekananda, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, and later teachers presented Advaita as a universal, rational spirituality compatible with modernity. This gave rise to what is often called Neo-Vedānta or Modern Advaita.

Modern advocates have emphasized:

• The compatibility of non-duality with scientific cosmology.
• The ethical implications of recognizing the same self in all beings.
• A universalist reading of Advaita as encompassing and harmonizing multiple religious paths.

Critics within Indian philosophy sometimes contend that these modern versions simplify or decontextualize classical Advaita, downplaying its ritual, monastic, and scholastic dimensions. Scholars also debate to what extent Neo-Vedānta was shaped by interactions with Western Idealism, Romanticism, and universalist theology.

Advaita has influenced global spirituality, particularly through:

• Popular teachers associated with Ramakrishna–Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Mission, Chinmaya Mission, and other organizations.
• The “non-duality” (nondual or advaita) discourse in contemporary meditation, yoga, and New Age movements.
• Academic comparative philosophy, where Advaita is often studied alongside Spinozism, German Idealism, and phenomenology.

In modern contexts, Advaita continues to be a living tradition, interpreted through monastic lineages, lay movements, and cross-cultural dialogues. Its central claim—that the deepest identity of the self is non-different from ultimate reality—remains a focal point of philosophical analysis, spiritual practice, and interreligious engagement.